Re: DeadPipe signal handler
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 11:35:21PM +, seventh guardian wrote: The DeadPipe signal handling is actually done by an empty function. Is there any future use for it? Or is it just a relic and may be removed from the code? It may or may not be a relic of older code, but one basic idea of the signal handler rewrite back in '98 or '99 was to have the same signal handling code for fvwm and all modules. So, one reason to keep it is just that some of the modules use it. Update: The DeadPipe handler has been empty at least since the sighandler rewrite (fvwm-2.2 or earlier). Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DeadPipe signal handler
On 12/31/06, Dominik Vogt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 11:35:21PM +, seventh guardian wrote: The DeadPipe signal handling is actually done by an empty function. Is there any future use for it? Or is it just a relic and may be removed from the code? It may or may not be a relic of older code, but one basic idea of the signal handler rewrite back in '98 or '99 was to have the same signal handling code for fvwm and all modules. So, one reason to keep it is just that some of the modules use it. Isn't the code for the modules independent from the fvwm code? The DeadPipe I'm talking about is in module_interface.c/h and in fvwm.c.. Renato Update: The DeadPipe handler has been empty at least since the sighandler rewrite (fvwm-2.2 or earlier). Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFlwFvmeSprTOr4tgRAoAPAJoCseuBCXPTmrNGMJF/yETsQUgNAgCfVsO6 GcsEgbSVweGVmCx7VN3vrAc= =FtCn -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: DeadPipe signal handler
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 12:48:08AM +, seventh guardian wrote: On 12/31/06, Dominik Vogt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 11:35:21PM +, seventh guardian wrote: The DeadPipe signal handling is actually done by an empty function. Is there any future use for it? Or is it just a relic and may be removed from the code? It may or may not be a relic of older code, but one basic idea of the signal handler rewrite back in '98 or '99 was to have the same signal handling code for fvwm and all modules. So, one reason to keep it is just that some of the modules use it. Isn't the code for the modules independent from the fvwm code? The DeadPipe I'm talking about is in module_interface.c/h and in fvwm.c.. Yes, the code is independent, but it was created by copy-and-paste. Update: The DeadPipe handler has been empty at least since the sighandler rewrite (fvwm-2.2 or earlier). Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DeadPipe signal handler
On 12/31/06, Dominik Vogt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 12:48:08AM +, seventh guardian wrote: On 12/31/06, Dominik Vogt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 11:35:21PM +, seventh guardian wrote: The DeadPipe signal handling is actually done by an empty function. Is there any future use for it? Or is it just a relic and may be removed from the code? It may or may not be a relic of older code, but one basic idea of the signal handler rewrite back in '98 or '99 was to have the same signal handling code for fvwm and all modules. So, one reason to keep it is just that some of the modules use it. Isn't the code for the modules independent from the fvwm code? The DeadPipe I'm talking about is in module_interface.c/h and in fvwm.c.. Yes, the code is independent, but it was created by copy-and-paste. Should it remain the same on the two spots? IMHO the code would be better to maintain if there were no copy-paste links.. they are not obvious, and tend to be forgotten.. Cheers Renato Update: The DeadPipe handler has been empty at least since the sighandler rewrite (fvwm-2.2 or earlier). Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFlwyxmeSprTOr4tgRAs4VAKCS4feXu0zK93h2srK0R7WOWAQqVwCfUp/O xsPbRAIYMyF3pwIptASLdLo= =pwhz -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: DeadPipe signal handler
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 01:13:26AM +, seventh guardian wrote: On 12/31/06, Dominik Vogt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 12:48:08AM +, seventh guardian wrote: On 12/31/06, Dominik Vogt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 11:35:21PM +, seventh guardian wrote: The DeadPipe signal handling is actually done by an empty function. Is there any future use for it? Or is it just a relic and may be removed from the code? It may or may not be a relic of older code, but one basic idea of the signal handler rewrite back in '98 or '99 was to have the same signal handling code for fvwm and all modules. So, one reason to keep it is just that some of the modules use it. Isn't the code for the modules independent from the fvwm code? The DeadPipe I'm talking about is in module_interface.c/h and in fvwm.c.. Yes, the code is independent, but it was created by copy-and-paste. Should it remain the same on the two spots? IMHO the code would be better to maintain if there were no copy-paste links.. they are not obvious, and tend to be forgotten.. I'd rather say the code should go into some library to remove the code duplication. Update: The DeadPipe handler has been empty at least since the sighandler rewrite (fvwm-2.2 or earlier). Ciao Dominik ^_^ ^_^ -- Dominik Vogt, [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Digital signature
